An excerpt:

Interlocutor: “There is simply no other arrangement that can ground every human family in gender equality—companionate heterosexual monogamous marriage (as the essay entitled “Some Things Which Should Not Have Been Forgotten Were Lost ” in this issue terms it) is simply “it.” No gender unequal relationship (even if it is called “marriage”) and no gender apartheid arrangement (with a person of the same sex or with no other person at all) can ground the households of the human family in gender equality. ” Also, “If men and women live separate lives within their society, a hierarchy of men over women—with its attendant slide towards malignant patriarchy–is the inevitable result… the state itself has a vested interest in the creation and promulgation of companionate heterosexual monogamous marriage (G arrangements)—and likewise has a vested interest in the proactive hindrance of evolutionary marriage and gender apartheid. It is only through the widespread existence of companionate heterosexual monogamous marriages that democracy, freedom, prosperity, and other goods such as state peacefulness can continue to have strong root and be sustainable. ”
My response: Does allowing an African American to another African American frustrate racial equality? Should we instead require that an African American marry a Caucasian, or a Japanese person marry a non-Japanese, to promote racial equality? How about religion- should we mandate Catholic-Jew weddings, and bar the pairing of two Southern Baptists, to promote religious equality? “One must wonder why it is necessary to prohibit same-sex marriage to promote gender equality when it suffices to permit interracial marriage to promote racial equality. ” Allowing different-race marriage doesn’t evidence the state’s preference for or against same-race marriage- apartheid is an inappropriate comparison because apartheid mandates segregation whereas SSM is merely an option. The offensiveness of miscegenation laws is not merely because of privileging one race above another, but that race is simply not an appropriate basis for limiting or granting the privilege of marriage. Gender is inappropriate by the same token. Last, what is the basis for concluding that patriarchy is the inevitable result of SSM? Both men and women have equal rights in such a jurisdiction- what then would found the supremacy of the males? Indeed, traditional marriage has historically promoted gender hierarchy with women receiving the short end of the stick. Might not defense of that traditional hierarchy itself perversely result in fewer women entering the institution? Much of the tradition-based anti-SSM rhetoric is vulnerable to that risk.

“Myself, it just seems like cognitive dissonance to uphold the value of women in the world on the one hand and deny the importance of their contribution to the family unit on the other.”—Proud Daughter of Eve

Daughter, homosexual couples include those consisting of two women as well as two men. Indeed, lesbian parents are overwhelmingly better studied than families headed by male–male couples.

Additionally: I do not wish to raise children with a woman. I wish to raise them with another man. The fact that I, a homosexual male, am not well-suited to raising children with a female partner is not a personal reflection upon your suitability as a parent, and certainly not on the qualifications of womanhood in general. I could choose, against my nature and better judgement, to marry a woman; however, I would be a poor substitute for the sort of partner she could (and should) have, as she would be for me. It would be a violence to both of us.

My mother is a wonderful woman, and so I can affirm happily that women have plenty to contribute to the family. That is why it is better that they do not marry gay men, which does a deep disservice to their talents. If a woman respects herself and her calling to parenthood, she will find herself a far better match. There is no reason to block me from my own calling to love, family and happiness, since doing so cannot materially improve your own.

http://approachingjustice.wordpress.com/2009/04/24/a-glimpse-of-public-reason-lincoln-and-rawls/

Having read your post (but not the comments yet), I really would encourage you to submit this to Square Two. This is, I think, precisely the kind of thoughtful response that I think they are hoping to get (and if not, well then, at least we will have learned something about them…).

As an aside, I think Ralph Hancock’s arguments are much better and more nuanced than Cassler’s, esp. in his comment #2 under Sherlock’s article in the same issue—so, I would personally like to see these deeper issues he raises addressed more directly (your posts indirectly addresses some but not all of the concerns he raises…).

Thanks again for your thoughtful post.